Aryo Pradipta Gema
Publications
Logit-Contribution Scoring Identifies Non-Literal Retrieval Heads
In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them. Identifying which attention heads perform this synthesis matters for interpreting long-context model behavior. Yet existing detectors miss these heads by construction: they reward heads whose attended token matches the generated token, a literal-copy criterion that captures where a head reads but not what it writes through its output-value (OV) circuit, the very mechanism that carries non-literal retrieval. We introduce Logit-Contribution Scoring (LOCOS), a write-aware detector that scores each head by the projection of its OV-circuit output onto the answer-token unembedding direction, contrasting needle and off-needle source positions in a single forward pass. Across three model families (Qwen3, Gemma-3, OLMo-3.1), mean-ablating the top LOCOS heads on the NoLiMa non-literal retrieval benchmark collapses ROUGE-L at lower head counts than prior attention-based detections; on Qwen3-8B, ablating 50 heads drives ROUGE-L from 0.401 to 0.000 while the strongest baseline still retains 0.292. The selected heads are retrieval-specific: parametric recall and arithmetic reasoning stay at baseline under the same ablation. On Qwen3-8B, the same ablation also drops MuSiQue from 0.55 to 0.08 and BABI-Long from 0.62 to 0.20, while a random-heads control stays within 0.05 of baseline.
The Hot Mess of AI: How Does Misalignment Scale With Model Intelligence and Task Complexity?
As AI becomes more capable, we entrust it with more general and consequential tasks. The risks from failure grow more severe with increasing task scope. It is therefore important to understand how extremely capable AI models will fail: Will they fail by systematically pursuing goals we do not intend? Or will they fail by being a hot mess, and taking nonsensical actions that do not further any goal? We operationalize this question using a bias-variance decomposition of the errors made by AI models: An AI's \emph{incoherence} on a task is measured over test-time randomness as the fraction of its error that stems from variance rather than bias in task outcome. Across all tasks and frontier models we measure, the longer models spend reasoning and taking actions, \emph{the more incoherent} their failures become. Incoherence changes with model scale in a way that is experiment dependent. However, in several settings, larger, more capable models are more incoherent than smaller models. Consequently, scale alone seems unlikely to eliminate incoherence. Instead, as more capable AIs pursue harder tasks, requiring more sequential action and thought, our results predict failures to be accompanied by more incoherent behavior. This suggests a future where AIs sometimes cause industrial accidents (due to unpredictable misbehavior), but are less likely to exhibit consistent pursuit of a misaligned goal. This increases the relative importance of alignment research targeting reward hacking or goal misspecification.